Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cat in tree

Cat stuck in a tree

Cats are noted for a fondness for high places, which often results in the animal becoming stuck up a tree. Pictured is a domestic cat stuck in a limb approximately 3m from the ground

A domestic cat stuck up in a tree and uncertain of how best to procede. Perhaps not overly endowed with "wow" factor, but the image is of encyclopeadic value and the image quality is great.

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really see how it adds to the Cat article, other than it shows a cat up a tree with the same caption. It doesn't explain why it's stuck, how it's stuck, how it's rescued etc. A cat being rescued will be more encyclopedic on this behaviour than simply being on a tree. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to check its placement in the article? --Fir0002 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and while the article rave on about high places and things there's a picutre showing a cat on a branch of unknown height with a simple caption of "a cat in a tree". Now I'm not being negative but it doesn't add a lot to the article, not when the reader have no idea what is wrong with the cat. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. The picture is quite good in quality, but it needs an expanded caption. NauticaShad e s 09:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I liked it for its anecdotal touch when it was nominated on commons (although I was the only one..) But I fail to see the encyclopedic value. Context is missing, how high up is the cat, why is the image relevant for the Cat article? --Dschwen 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have you had a look at the placement in the article? Opening line in the seciton: "Most breeds of cat have a noted fondness for settling in high places, or perching" pretty much shows the relevance. But I'll expand the caption a little more if you wish --Fir0002 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This article is overloaded with mostly low quality images. And technically this one is one of the best in there. Still now the caption mentiones the height but the picture doesn't show it. --Dschwen 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of my pet articles (please excuse the pun), and it suffers from the problem of people always trying to stick in photos of their cats, so I think we've tried to be accommodating. I personally have replaced a number of extremely low quality images with pictures from Commons, but yes, the article could use some better cat photography. howch e ng {chat} 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A cat in a tree... Nothing special, not encyclopedic. Mere technical quality does not an FP make. --Janke | Talk 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Janke, good photo, no magic. Alvesgaspar 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Support/~~Neutral Good quality image, but not very encyclopedic. Hello32020 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But encyclopedicity is an important criteria which sets this page apart from Commons:FPC. --Dschwen 23:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I'm changing it to plain neutral. Hello32020 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — It is already placed in the "perching and falling" section of the cat article, which this image illustrates perfectly. It is perfectly encyclopedic for that reason. ♠ SG →Talk 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as Alvesgaspar above JanSuchy 07:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I have mixed feelings about this one. I think it is encyclopaedic (cats get stuck up trees), but it is also lacking a "wow" factor, so I can't quite support it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Stephen Turner. I also don't like the branch that hangs over and interferes with the picture. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - i might change this to support if the picture was referring to something really being discussed in the article (the section it's near has more to do with the cats falling from high places), if the section was about the United States anecdote about firemen rescuing cats from trees - it may be better. additionally, like previously stated, the branches get in the way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I really like the photo, but its encyclopedic value is a little hard to find. enochlau (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent shot, you've caught it at a great moment. So much more interesting than the echidna above. I have slight misgivings about the encyclopaedic value of the cat, but it does illustrate the given paragraph of Cat well, and it would make a great lead photo for Cat getting stuck in tree syndrome, whenever that gets written...Stevage 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course!--Mike 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, SG, and Stevage. User:Sd31415/Sig 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose but not because I don't think its encyclopedic. The issue for me is that it doesn't significantly add to the cat article. It illustrates a very small part of the article regarging cats liking high places and falling from them and it would illustrate that pretty well if that was what the article was about. Who knows, in future the cat article may be split and a separate article might be the perfect location for the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's better not to take the FPC requirements too literally sometimes - otherwise, we should theoretically be delisting images the moment they happen to get removed from their associated articles, or the article changes in a certain way or whatever. I kind of agree with you, though. Stevage 01:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - delisting images the moment they happen to get removed from their associated articles? Thats exactly what we should do. Images get removed for a reason. If the crowd at the respective article doesn't deem it good enough anymore there is no reason to keep up FP status. I did nominate a bunch of removed FPs for delisting about a year ago, and I still have the script to detect them on my computer. Maybe its time for a second sweeping. --Dschwen 08:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The out of focus branch in the foreground is somewhat distracting, but great pic otherwise. Not too sure where it will go in the cat page...there's already way too many pics there. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seriously, 80% of the pictures in the Cat article need to go, this is all "I want my cat in Wikipedia" frenzy, but this one actually stands out for good quality and composition. I don't mind the branch in the foreground at all, it adds depth. The image needs to be cropped though, there is an artifact in the lower right corner, and the cat should be centered in the picture. ~ trialsanderrors 20:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]